Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

[John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these groups,
not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.

'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'

True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think in
a logical and rational manner)



"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...
>I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
>X64.
> I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
>
> Can't you write a post without insulting people?
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.
>
>
>
>
> "Theo" wrote:
>
>> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
>> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
>> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
>> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
>> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
>>
>> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
>> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
>> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
>> Russel's paper on Win x64.
>>
>> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
>> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
>> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
>>
>> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
>> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
>> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
>> know I want to go.
>>
>> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
>> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
>> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
>> OS, and many others.
>>
>> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
>> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
>> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
>>
>>
>> Denise wrote:
>> > In this thread, the person asked:
>> >
>> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
>> > any
>> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
>> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
>> >
>> >
>> > You said:
>> >
>> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
>> > Windows
>> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
>> > have been
>> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not
>> > constructive!"
>> >
>> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't
>> > post
>> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that
>> > it is
>> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
>> >
>> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
>> > constructive,
>> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
>> > you will
>> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
>> > here,
>> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
>> > X64.
>> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
>> > Processor,
>> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I
>> > know a
>> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
>> >
>> >
>> > You said:
>> >
>> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take
>> > the
>> > initiative to do some research."
>> >
>> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
>> > people
>> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
>> > information
>> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
>> > when
>> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so
>> > my
>> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the
>> > that
>> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned
>> > out to
>> > be a terrible one.
>> >
>> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in
>> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
>> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
>> > discuss
>> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
>> > insults.
>> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads,
>> > not
>> > opinions about Microsoft products.
>>

 

[Theo]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

I got tired of you carrying on about how screwed up .NET
Framework was when you were trying to run a 32-bit program
that had .DLLs that are not compatible with Win x64. You
were totally obsessed with Microsoft being responsible for
your mistake and appeared to have no concept of what was
really going on.


Denise wrote:
> Can't you write a post without insulting people?

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions. He
did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm
blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for purchasing
X64.

Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide
assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.
You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in which
you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped onto
the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems
with it?
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"John Barnes" wrote:

> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these groups,
> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.
>
> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'
>
> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think in
> a logical and rational manner)
>
>
>
> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...
> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
> >X64.
> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
> >
> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?
> > --
> > Denise
> >
> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> > going.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Theo" wrote:
> >
> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
> >>
> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.
> >>
> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
> >>
> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
> >> know I want to go.
> >>
> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
> >> OS, and many others.
> >>
> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
> >>
> >>
> >> Denise wrote:
> >> > In this thread, the person asked:
> >> >
> >> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
> >> > any
> >> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably more
> >> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You said:
> >> >
> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
> >> > Windows
> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
> >> > have been
> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is not
> >> > constructive!"
> >> >
> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who shouldn't
> >> > post
> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears that
> >> > it is
> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
> >> >
> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
> >> > constructive,
> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
> >> > you will
> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
> >> > here,
> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
> >> > X64.
> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
> >> > Processor,
> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so I
> >> > know a
> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You said:
> >> >
> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then take
> >> > the
> >> > initiative to do some research."
> >> >
> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
> >> > people
> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
> >> > information
> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
> >> > when
> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television so
> >> > my
> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at the
> >> > that
> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it turned
> >> > out to
> >> > be a terrible one.
> >> >
> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post in
> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
> >> > discuss
> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
> >> > insults.
> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all threads,
> >> > not
> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.
> >>
>
>

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

You're grasping at straws there, Theo. We've moved on from there and, again,
that's not the point of this thread. When asked what one thinks of an os, to
mention .NET Framework is an example of a problem with the os. To state that
I'm "totally obsessed" with Microsoft being responsible for your mistake and
appeared to have no concept of what was really going on" makes no sense nor
does it address the topic of this thread. Again, your post was written
solely to insult me. Stay on track here, Theo. Royston wants to know what
we thing of X64 Pro and Vista X64, not about what you and others think about
me.

Again, I repeat, stay on topic.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"Theo" wrote:

> I got tired of you carrying on about how screwed up .NET
> Framework was when you were trying to run a 32-bit program
> that had .DLLs that are not compatible with Win x64. You
> were totally obsessed with Microsoft being responsible for
> your mistake and appeared to have no concept of what was
> really going on.
>
>
> Denise wrote:
> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?
>

 

[John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

You are one of the few having problems with XP64. The large majority of
problems are due to incompatible hardware or software, which is NOT the
operating systems problem. Most of us had to replace hardware and software
that was not, and would never be made compatible. Microsoft may have
released XP64 to gauge their success in developing a 64-bit system, to help
with the Vista64 release later on, but as to recovering their expenses, you
must think they are complete business incompetents. The sales of the niche
system could hardly have been expected to make a dent in the associated
expenses. It was an investment in the future of computing. Good luck. I
am going back to my policy of not responding to trolls, so bye, bye and I
hope your next software purchase is a better experience.

Incidentally, it is easy to know where you are going without knowing where
you came from, what you need to know is where you are now.

"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A585865B-3F67-425E-88FA-FABDDC294B7F@microsoft.com...
> You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions.
> He
> did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm
> blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for
> purchasing
> X64.
>
> Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide
> assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.
> You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in
> which
> you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped
> onto
> the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems
> with it?
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.
>
>
> "John Barnes" wrote:
>
>> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
>> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these
>> groups,
>> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.
>>
>> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'
>>
>> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think
>> in
>> a logical and rational manner)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...
>> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
>> >X64.
>> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
>> >
>> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?
>> > --
>> > Denise
>> >
>> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
>> > going.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Theo" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
>> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
>> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
>> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
>> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
>> >>
>> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
>> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
>> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
>> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.
>> >>
>> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
>> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
>> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
>> >>
>> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
>> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
>> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
>> >> know I want to go.
>> >>
>> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
>> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
>> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
>> >> OS, and many others.
>> >>
>> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
>> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
>> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Denise wrote:
>> >> > In this thread, the person asked:
>> >> >
>> >> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
>> >> > any
>> >> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably
>> >> > more
>> >> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You said:
>> >> >
>> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
>> >> > Windows
>> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
>> >> > have been
>> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is
>> >> > not
>> >> > constructive!"
>> >> >
>> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who
>> >> > shouldn't
>> >> > post
>> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears
>> >> > that
>> >> > it is
>> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
>> >> >
>> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
>> >> > constructive,
>> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
>> >> > you will
>> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
>> >> > here,
>> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
>> >> > X64.
>> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
>> >> > Processor,
>> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so
>> >> > I
>> >> > know a
>> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You said:
>> >> >
>> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then
>> >> > take
>> >> > the
>> >> > initiative to do some research."
>> >> >
>> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
>> >> > people
>> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
>> >> > information
>> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
>> >> > when
>> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television
>> >> > so
>> >> > my
>> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at
>> >> > the
>> >> > that
>> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it
>> >> > turned
>> >> > out to
>> >> > be a terrible one.
>> >> >
>> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post
>> >> > in
>> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
>> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
>> >> > discuss
>> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
>> >> > insults.
>> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all
>> >> > threads,
>> >> > not
>> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.
>> >>
>>
>>

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista X64!
Thank you!

You said:

"Most of us had to replace hardware and software
that was not, and would never be made compatible. "

This was never mentioned at the website where I purchased X64 or on the
package. This fact is major and it should have been stated up-front, the
fact that it's the beta version for Vista X64.


I didn't purchase X64 to make "an investment in the future of computing,"
but for my os." I'm not a guinea pig and I don't like to be treated as such.
Microsoft didn't mention this fact either.


I won't respond to your insults in your post. It seems that you and others
just can't help being rude, immature and blind.


I wish everyone good luck with X64 and I hope it doesn't sap your pockets
dry in order to convert your hardware and software to be compatible with X64.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"John Barnes" wrote:

> You are one of the few having problems with XP64. The large majority of
> problems are due to incompatible hardware or software, which is NOT the
> operating systems problem. Most of us had to replace hardware and software
> that was not, and would never be made compatible. Microsoft may have
> released XP64 to gauge their success in developing a 64-bit system, to help
> with the Vista64 release later on, but as to recovering their expenses, you
> must think they are complete business incompetents. The sales of the niche
> system could hardly have been expected to make a dent in the associated
> expenses. It was an investment in the future of computing. Good luck. I
> am going back to my policy of not responding to trolls, so bye, bye and I
> hope your next software purchase is a better experience.
>
> Incidentally, it is easy to know where you are going without knowing where
> you came from, what you need to know is where you are now.
>
> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A585865B-3F67-425E-88FA-FABDDC294B7F@microsoft.com...
> > You're missing the point of this thread. The author asked for opinions.
> > He
> > did not ask for help. Also, I don't understand why you think that I'm
> > blaming anyone, let alone for my non-existent mistakes, except for
> > purchasing
> > X64.
> >
> > Your last post did nothing to help anyone, teach anyone or provide
> > assistance in any manner. Your entire post contains insults aimed at me.
> > You're contradicting yourself there, John. Is that the only manner in
> > which
> > you and other defenders of X64 can use for the os that Microsoft dumped
> > onto
> > the market in order to recoup its expenses when there are so many problems
> > with it?
> > --
> > Denise
> >
> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> > going.
> >
> >
> > "John Barnes" wrote:
> >
> >> Can you write a post that doesn't blame everyone else for your mistakes?
> >> Asking for specific help and providing help is the purpose of these
> >> groups,
> >> not trolling for sympathy and ad hominem attacks.
> >>
> >> 'Whatever my reasons for having X64 are my own'
> >>
> >> True, but obviously not based on reason.(the power of being able to think
> >> in
> >> a logical and rational manner)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:2F1B3693-B07C-4E22-BA27-D3A8105553B9@microsoft.com...
> >> >I don't want to argue. I replied to Royston H's request for opinions of
> >> >X64.
> >> > I gave mine and, since then, people have been arguing with me.
> >> >
> >> > Can't you write a post without insulting people?
> >> > --
> >> > Denise
> >> >
> >> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> >> > going.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Theo" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> The major difference is that I know most of the limitations
> >> >> of Win x64 and I utilize it for it's strengths. I did a lot
> >> >> of research looking for drivers and peripheral hardware that
> >> >> had x64 drivers. Yes, there are deficiencies in Win x64,
> >> >> but I haven't found any operating system that is perfect.
> >> >>
> >> >> Arguments are totally unnecessary. All anyone has to do is
> >> >> do research and evaluate whether Win x64 is appropriate for
> >> >> their situation. One of the best resources is Charlie
> >> >> Russel's paper on Win x64.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's like buying a vehicle. One researches the available
> >> >> products and determines which vehicle he/she wants. One
> >> >> doesn't buy a Ford and then complain because it isn't a Chevy.
> >> >>
> >> >> I definitely am not lost. I know exactly where I have been
> >> >> and I periodically evaluate my objects to determine if I am
> >> >> proceeding in a reasonable and logical manner to where I
> >> >> know I want to go.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have been using, repairing, building, setting up networks,
> >> >> and programming computers for long time. I have worked with
> >> >> CP/M, MS-DOS, OS/2, Unix, Linux, Apple OS, Atari OS, PDP/11
> >> >> OS, and many others.
> >> >>
> >> >> And, I guess you're right. If you want to throw a temper
> >> >> tantrum, scream and kick your feet, then you have every
> >> >> right to do so. Hope you feel better when you stop!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Denise wrote:
> >> >> > In this thread, the person asked:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "I'd like to hear from people who have used both in anger and see if
> >> >> > any
> >> >> > valid arguments exist for sticking with XP, say it's considerably
> >> >> > more
> >> >> > stable etc, given that long term the future is with vista anyway."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You said:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "If you want to come to this forum to honestly seek help with 64-bit
> >> >> > Windows
> >> >> > operating systems, then you're welcome. However, most of your posts
> >> >> > have been
> >> >> > to complain about and deride 64-bit Windows and Microsoft. That is
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > constructive!"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Given the request of the author of this thread, it's you who
> >> >> > shouldn't
> >> >> > post
> >> >> > in this thread because you don't know what it's about. It appears
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > it is
> >> >> > you who is confused and lost here, not I.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I very much think that voicing my opinion regarding X64 is
> >> >> > constructive,
> >> >> > even if it wasn't the topic of conversation, but it is. People like
> >> >> > you will
> >> >> > defend X64 to your deaths and you give the illusion, as you've done
> >> >> > here,
> >> >> > that it's the user who is the cause of the problem when it's really
> >> >> > X64.
> >> >> > I've been using machines for 30 years, starting with the Wang Word
> >> >> > Processor,
> >> >> > graduating to DOS, and I then went on to Windows 95, 98, 2000 XP, so
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > know a
> >> >> > lot about how operating systems should work and X64 is poor.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You said:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "If you think Microsoft is withholding critical information, then
> >> >> > take
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > initiative to do some research."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Most of the information on the internet regarding X64 was written by
> >> >> > people
> >> >> > like you who thinks that Microsoft's s*** doesn't stink. The
> >> >> > information
> >> >> > should have been on the package. I bought X64 more than a year ago
> >> >> > when
> >> >> > there was little to no critiques about it. I don't watch television
> >> >> > so
> >> >> > my
> >> >> > choice to use X64 was based on the general consensus of opinion at
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > it was the next generation of Windows. It very well is but it
> >> >> > turned
> >> >> > out to
> >> >> > be a terrible one.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In addition, you have no right to tell me or anyone else not to post
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > these forums. By doing so, it sounds like you also want to cover up
> >> >> > something about X64 and it angers you to the point when you can't
> >> >> > discuss
> >> >> > this topic rationally, in a mature manner, without name-calling and
> >> >> > insults.
> >> >> > Those are the types of comments that are inappropriate in all
> >> >> > threads,
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > opinions about Microsoft products.
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

 

[Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
> X64!
> Thank you!

Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to help
get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very extended
Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties as much
time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large most of them
ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft. Windows XP Pro
x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was only available
through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential end-user problems
from having limited driver support from third parties. Again, there's not
much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it and install it without
having done the necessary research.

I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three years
and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third parties
are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part selling x64
CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS that supports
x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools for 64-bit native
development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo programs and its own
software development efforts. After that, it's up to customer demand and
third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version of Windows 64-bit and
customers using it, no third party was going to do anything to support it.
It's a classic technology problem, and the transition will be with us for
many years to come.


> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
> an
> X64 os.
>
> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2

Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were prefectly
capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably felt there
wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with Microsoft or
Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take towards new
technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something else.

Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is a
problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they won't
bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is blaming
the wrong party for the lack of support.

--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

I understand your logic and it makes sense to a certain point, but as you
said, "We had a very extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to
give third parties as much time as possible to get their support in place,
but by in large most of them
ignored it." So it stopped making sense at that point. There was a
specific reason(s) why third parties didn't get support in place. They are
out to make money themselves. If X64 would have given them the opportunity
to make money, they wouldn't have chosen to ignore getting their support in
place. I consistently feel that "something is rotten in the state of
Denmark," but I won't pursue it any longer. For now, I have what I need. If
X64 doesn't work out, I'll reformat to 2000 XP Pro.

Your post afforded the opportunity for exchanging thoughts and facts, and I
appreciate that.

The reason I mentioned Adobe Acrobat is because someone posted that Adobe
Acrobat works with her X64 os. Whether or not Adobe writes 64-bit native
printer
drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x doesn't matter to me.
I use FoxIt and it works well with a X64 os.

AMD has a 64-bit firmware update for my CPU. When I attempted to install it
several times, I always received messages that "Setup.exe has failed . . ."
Today, I reformatted my computer two times to get the CPU firmware updated
and it finally worked the second time. These types of problems never
occurred with the other versions of Windows, or at least I never had such
problems. Since it was a Microsoft error message, the reason the CPU
firmware update couldn't be installed was the fault of Microsoft's X64 os.
Since I was able to install the updated 64-bit CPU firmware after I
reformatted the second time tells me that X64 isn't working properly.
Something is missing in X64.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" wrote:

> > Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
> > X64!
> > Thank you!
>
> Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
> software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
> XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to help
> get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very extended
> Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties as much
> time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large most of them
> ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft. Windows XP Pro
> x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was only available
> through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential end-user problems
> from having limited driver support from third parties. Again, there's not
> much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it and install it without
> having done the necessary research.
>
> I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three years
> and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third parties
> are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part selling x64
> CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS that supports
> x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools for 64-bit native
> development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo programs and its own
> software development efforts. After that, it's up to customer demand and
> third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version of Windows 64-bit and
> customers using it, no third party was going to do anything to support it.
> It's a classic technology problem, and the transition will be with us for
> many years to come.
>
>
> > It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
> > an
> > X64 os.
> >
> > http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
>
> Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
> drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were prefectly
> capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably felt there
> wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with Microsoft or
> Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take towards new
> technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something else.
>
> Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
> device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is a
> problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they won't
> bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is blaming
> the wrong party for the lack of support.
>
> --
> Chuck Walbourn
> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>
>

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full time
for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well performing
system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with betas
and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
>> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
>> X64!
>> Thank you!
>
> Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
> software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
> XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to
> help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
> extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties
> as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large
> most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft.
> Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was
> only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
> end-user problems from having limited driver support from third parties.
> Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it
> and install it without having done the necessary research.
>
> I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
> years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third
> parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part
> selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS
> that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools
> for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo
> programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up to
> customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version
> of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to do
> anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
> transition will be with us for many years to come.
>
>
>> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
>> an
>> X64 os.
>>
>> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
>
> Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
> drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
> prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
> felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
> Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
> towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something
> else.
>
> Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
> device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is
> a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they
> won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is
> blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
>
> --
> Chuck Walbourn
> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its advertising
13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with existing
hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000 XP
Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have pretty
good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with betas
and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by
giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As the
author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and Pro
X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I
purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself, made be
feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
purchased to build my computer.

So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase new
hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your
32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive. Updated
drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software, such as
my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit driver
"fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a Microsoft
Word document.

I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus", understand
most of Charlie's statement:

"That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
version, I did a clean, fresh install."

This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
install the new CPU firmware that I had.

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536

It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.





"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full time
> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well performing
> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with betas
> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of Vista
> >> X64!
> >> Thank you!
> >
> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers or
> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in Windows
> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to
> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third parties
> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large
> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not Microsoft.
> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and was
> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third parties.
> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy it
> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
> >
> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most third
> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their part
> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an OS
> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools
> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through logo
> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up to
> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a version
> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to do
> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
> >
> >
> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run in
> >> an
> >> X64 os.
> >>
> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
> >
> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native printer
> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do something
> > else.
> >
> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of software/hardware
> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit is
> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they
> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft is
> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
> >
> > --
> > Chuck Walbourn
> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> >
>

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

You purchased an OEM or System Builder version. As such, you or your OEM are
responsible for support and due diligence. That's why it's not a retail
version.

No, I don't have cash flow to buy new hardware. But when I _do_ buy
hardware, I buy with interoperability in mind. I buy printers, for example,
that don't require special drivers - they're standard, network connected,
PCL5 and PS enabled, printers. They work with everything. And I keep them
for years. I've had my current HP printer for 5 or 6 years, and I can print
to it from any version of windows, from Linux, from UNIX, and from a Mac.
Without loading any special drivers. That's simply a matter of spending
money wisely. Yes, that printer cost me a bit more originally - probably an
extra $150 though I don't specifically remember. But it's still going
strong.

As for third parties? I have a long history of spending my money only with
companies who do the right thing. And I write about it and make
recommendations based on that.

I'd suggest that you should stop blaming everyone else and get on with it.
This forum is for helping users. That's why I come here, on my own time, and
my own dime - to help build this community and provide support for people
who want and need it. I've been doing that every day for over two years.
While running x64 XP and Vista on my main machines. And yes, I've certainly
had more than one strong discussion with a vendor who didn't provide the
support I thought they should. Including MS. But ultimately, I make my
point, make my decision, and move on.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com...
> It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
> advertising
> 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with
> existing
> hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
> compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000
> XP
> Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
> software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have
> pretty
> good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with
> betas
> and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by
> giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As the
> author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and Pro
> X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
> 64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I
> purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself, made
> be
> feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
> purchased to build my computer.
>
> So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase
> new
> hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your
> 32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive.
> Updated
> drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software, such
> as
> my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
> capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit driver
> "fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a
> Microsoft
> Word document.
>
> I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus",
> understand
> most of Charlie's statement:
>
> "That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> version, I did a clean, fresh install."
>
> This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
> install the new CPU firmware that I had.
>
> http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536
>
> It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
> matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full
>> time
>> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
>> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well
>> performing
>> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
>> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
>> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with
>> betas
>> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
>> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of
>> >> Vista
>> >> X64!
>> >> Thank you!
>> >
>> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers
>> > or
>> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in
>> > Windows
>> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to
>> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
>> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third
>> > parties
>> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large
>> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not
>> > Microsoft.
>> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and
>> > was
>> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
>> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third
>> > parties.
>> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy
>> > it
>> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
>> >
>> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
>> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most
>> > third
>> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their
>> > part
>> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an
>> > OS
>> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools
>> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through
>> > logo
>> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up
>> > to
>> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a
>> > version
>> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to
>> > do
>> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
>> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
>> >
>> >
>> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run
>> >> in
>> >> an
>> >> X64 os.
>> >>
>> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
>> >
>> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native
>> > printer
>> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
>> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
>> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
>> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
>> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do
>> > something
>> > else.
>> >
>> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of
>> > software/hardware
>> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit
>> > is
>> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they
>> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft
>> > is
>> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chuck Walbourn
>> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>> >
>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> > rights.
>> >
>>

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me
in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will
be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will
again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any
specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my
contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
so.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com...
> It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
> advertising
> 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with
> existing
> hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
> compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000
> XP
> Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
> software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have
> pretty
> good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with
> betas
> and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by
> giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As the
> author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and Pro
> X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
> 64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I
> purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself, made
> be
> feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
> purchased to build my computer.
>
> So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase
> new
> hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your
> 32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive.
> Updated
> drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software, such
> as
> my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
> capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit driver
> "fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a
> Microsoft
> Word document.
>
> I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus",
> understand
> most of Charlie's statement:
>
> "That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> version, I did a clean, fresh install."
>
> This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
> install the new CPU firmware that I had.
>
> http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536
>
> It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
> matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
> --
> Denise
>
> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> going.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full
>> time
>> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
>> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well
>> performing
>> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
>> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
>> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with
>> betas
>> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
>> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of
>> >> Vista
>> >> X64!
>> >> Thank you!
>> >
>> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers
>> > or
>> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in
>> > Windows
>> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to
>> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
>> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third
>> > parties
>> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large
>> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not
>> > Microsoft.
>> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and
>> > was
>> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
>> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third
>> > parties.
>> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy
>> > it
>> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
>> >
>> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
>> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most
>> > third
>> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their
>> > part
>> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an
>> > OS
>> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools
>> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through
>> > logo
>> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up
>> > to
>> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a
>> > version
>> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to
>> > do
>> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
>> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
>> >
>> >
>> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run
>> >> in
>> >> an
>> >> X64 os.
>> >>
>> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
>> >
>> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native
>> > printer
>> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
>> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
>> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
>> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
>> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do
>> > something
>> > else.
>> >
>> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of
>> > software/hardware
>> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit
>> > is
>> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they
>> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft
>> > is
>> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chuck Walbourn
>> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>> >
>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> > rights.
>> >
>>

 

[XS11E]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
> advertising 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't
> compatible with existing hardware and software.

I sympathize with you, I've been on that exact same road when I tried
to upgrade from Windows 98se to Windows 2000.

I had to bite (byte? <G>) the bullet and scrap a VERY expensive bit of
hardware because Windows 2000 and later wouldn't support it. However,
I realized the problem was NOT MICROSOFT! The problem was Epson's
refusal to write a driver for a scanner that had cost $1,200 only two
years previously.

I'm not angry with Microsoft, it's not their fault that Epson decided I
had to buy a new scanner and guess what brand I didn't consider when
choosing my new scanner?

There's a certain amount of preparation involved in changing to a new
OS and that involves the old standard RTFM* and as I often explain to
newbies, RTFM includes these newsgroups! Only then can you have enough
information to make an informed decision and, in my case, the decision
to install Vista 64 was to dual boot until I could be sure that
everything would work in the new OS.

Again, I'm very sorry you had to learn the hard way but you really
can't blame anyone but yourself and please take this from one who did
exactly the same thing you have done and also had to learn the hard
way...



*RTFM = "Read The Fine Manual" <-Luu Tran

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

All bases have been covered here. I don't think there's a point that hasn't
been brought up and posted.

I just formatted my computer two times two days ago. If I have a file that
I want to copy to another drive, when I attempt to change the name of it, I
receive a message that the file is in use, even though it's not in use. It
finished copying and it's not open. When I reboot, I still can't change the
name because I receive the message that the file is in use. X64 is bad news.
I wanted to give X64 another chance by formatting my pc with X64. I had to
do it two times in order to update the CPU driver. I also downloaded and
installed new drivers for the chipset, audio and video. The audio is fine
but the video has problems. I have automatic updates turned on and all of
them have been installed, including SP2. I don't have Excel or Access
installed in my pc but Microsoft uploads updates for them I'll be formatting
it to 32-bit Windows 2000 XP Pro in a few weeks when I have a couple of days
to format it and install my programs. I'll try X64 next year and see how
things go.

I don't know why you accused me of blaming anyone for the problems that I
have with X64 . . . I have never done that.

This forum may be for helping others but this thread requested opinions of
the two X64 operating system, not for help with it. Everyone seems to miss
that point or they choose to ignore it.

You've made your point, so move on, as you claim you do.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.





"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> You purchased an OEM or System Builder version. As such, you or your OEM are
> responsible for support and due diligence. That's why it's not a retail
> version.
>
> No, I don't have cash flow to buy new hardware. But when I _do_ buy
> hardware, I buy with interoperability in mind. I buy printers, for example,
> that don't require special drivers - they're standard, network connected,
> PCL5 and PS enabled, printers. They work with everything. And I keep them
> for years. I've had my current HP printer for 5 or 6 years, and I can print
> to it from any version of windows, from Linux, from UNIX, and from a Mac.
> Without loading any special drivers. That's simply a matter of spending
> money wisely. Yes, that printer cost me a bit more originally - probably an
> extra $150 though I don't specifically remember. But it's still going
> strong.
>
> As for third parties? I have a long history of spending my money only with
> companies who do the right thing. And I write about it and make
> recommendations based on that.
>
> I'd suggest that you should stop blaming everyone else and get on with it.
> This forum is for helping users. That's why I come here, on my own time, and
> my own dime - to help build this community and provide support for people
> who want and need it. I've been doing that every day for over two years.
> While running x64 XP and Vista on my main machines. And yes, I've certainly
> had more than one strong discussion with a vendor who didn't provide the
> support I thought they should. Including MS. But ultimately, I make my
> point, make my decision, and move on.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com...
> > It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
> > advertising
> > 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with
> > existing
> > hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
> > compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000
> > XP
> > Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
> > software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have
> > pretty
> > good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with
> > betas
> > and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by
> > giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As the
> > author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and Pro
> > X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
> > 64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I
> > purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself, made
> > be
> > feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
> > purchased to build my computer.
> >
> > So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase
> > new
> > hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your
> > 32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive.
> > Updated
> > drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software, such
> > as
> > my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
> > capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit driver
> > "fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a
> > Microsoft
> > Word document.
> >
> > I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus",
> > understand
> > most of Charlie's statement:
> >
> > "That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
> > and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> > version, I did a clean, fresh install."
> >
> > This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
> > install the new CPU firmware that I had.
> >
> > http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536
> >
> > It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
> > matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
> > --
> > Denise
> >
> > ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> > going.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
> >
> >> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full
> >> time
> >> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
> >> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well
> >> performing
> >> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
> >> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> >> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with
> >> betas
> >> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Charlie.
> >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >>
> >>
> >> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
> >> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of
> >> >> Vista
> >> >> X64!
> >> >> Thank you!
> >> >
> >> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers
> >> > or
> >> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in
> >> > Windows
> >> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made to
> >> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
> >> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third
> >> > parties
> >> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in large
> >> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not
> >> > Microsoft.
> >> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and
> >> > was
> >> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
> >> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third
> >> > parties.
> >> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy
> >> > it
> >> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
> >> >
> >> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
> >> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most
> >> > third
> >> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their
> >> > part
> >> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an
> >> > OS
> >> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development tools
> >> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through
> >> > logo
> >> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up
> >> > to
> >> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a
> >> > version
> >> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to
> >> > do
> >> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
> >> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to run
> >> >> in
> >> >> an
> >> >> X64 os.
> >> >>
> >> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
> >> >
> >> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native
> >> > printer
> >> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
> >> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
> >> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
> >> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
> >> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do
> >> > something
> >> > else.
> >> >
> >> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of
> >> > software/hardware
> >> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows 64-bit
> >> > is
> >> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it, they
> >> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft
> >> > is
> >> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Chuck Walbourn
> >> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
> >> >
> >> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> > rights.
> >> >
> >>
>

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

I have never had to purchase new hardware or software when I updated from one
operating system to another, except for X64. I do blame Microsoft because it
gave no warning that it isn't compatible with hardware, software, drivers and
firmware. If these problems had not been hidden by Microsoft, then I would
accept the blame, but no such warnings were given. I learned that Microsoft
will not reveal all the facts regarding its software, so buyer beware.
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.





"XS11E" wrote:

> Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
> > advertising 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't
> > compatible with existing hardware and software.
>
> I sympathize with you, I've been on that exact same road when I tried
> to upgrade from Windows 98se to Windows 2000.
>
> I had to bite (byte? <G>) the bullet and scrap a VERY expensive bit of
> hardware because Windows 2000 and later wouldn't support it. However,
> I realized the problem was NOT MICROSOFT! The problem was Epson's
> refusal to write a driver for a scanner that had cost $1,200 only two
> years previously.
>
> I'm not angry with Microsoft, it's not their fault that Epson decided I
> had to buy a new scanner and guess what brand I didn't consider when
> choosing my new scanner?
>
> There's a certain amount of preparation involved in changing to a new
> OS and that involves the old standard RTFM* and as I often explain to
> newbies, RTFM includes these newsgroups! Only then can you have enough
> information to make an informed decision and, in my case, the decision
> to install Vista 64 was to dual boot until I could be sure that
> everything would work in the new OS.
>
> Again, I'm very sorry you had to learn the hard way but you really
> can't blame anyone but yourself and please take this from one who did
> exactly the same thing you have done and also had to learn the hard
> way...
>
>
>
> *RTFM = "Read The Fine Manual" <-Luu Tran
>
> --
> XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
> The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
>

 

[XS11E]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Denise <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I have never had to purchase new hardware or software when I
> updated from one operating system to another, except for X64. I
> do blame Microsoft because it gave no warning that it isn't
> compatible with hardware, software, drivers and firmware. If
> these problems had not been hidden by Microsoft, then I would
> accept the blame, but no such warnings were given. I learned that
> Microsoft will not reveal all the facts regarding its software, so
> buyer beware.

Denise, that's really hogwash and you know it. Nothing is/was hidden,
it's up to you do do your homework.



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

 

[John Barnes]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Hear, hear.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-AD2ECE9E5C88@microsoft.com...
> Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
> don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
> absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me
> in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will
> be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will
> again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any
> specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my
> contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
> independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
> so.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com...
>> It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
>> advertising
>> 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with
>> existing
>> hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
>> compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000
>> XP
>> Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
>> software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have
>> pretty
>> good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with
>> betas
>> and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by
>> giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As
>> the
>> author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and
>> Pro
>> X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
>> 64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I
>> purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself,
>> made be
>> feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
>> purchased to build my computer.
>>
>> So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase
>> new
>> hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your
>> 32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive.
>> Updated
>> drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software,
>> such as
>> my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
>> capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit
>> driver
>> "fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a
>> Microsoft
>> Word document.
>>
>> I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus",
>> understand
>> most of Charlie's statement:
>>
>> "That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
>> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
>> version, I did a clean, fresh install."
>>
>> This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
>> install the new CPU firmware that I had.
>>
>> http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536
>>
>> It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
>> matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
>> --
>> Denise
>>
>> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
>> going.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full
>>> time
>>> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
>>> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well
>>> performing
>>> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH
>>> 64),
>>> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
>>> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with
>>> betas
>>> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>>
>>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
>>> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of
>>> >> Vista
>>> >> X64!
>>> >> Thank you!
>>> >
>>> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers
>>> > or
>>> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in
>>> > Windows
>>> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made
>>> > to
>>> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
>>> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third
>>> > parties
>>> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in
>>> > large
>>> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not
>>> > Microsoft.
>>> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and
>>> > was
>>> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
>>> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third
>>> > parties.
>>> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy
>>> > it
>>> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
>>> >
>>> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
>>> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most
>>> > third
>>> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their
>>> > part
>>> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an
>>> > OS
>>> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development
>>> > tools
>>> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through
>>> > logo
>>> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up
>>> > to
>>> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a
>>> > version
>>> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to
>>> > do
>>> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
>>> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to
>>> >> run in
>>> >> an
>>> >> X64 os.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
>>> >
>>> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native
>>> > printer
>>> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
>>> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
>>> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
>>> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
>>> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do
>>> > something
>>> > else.
>>> >
>>> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of
>>> > software/hardware
>>> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows
>>> > 64-bit is
>>> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it,
>>> > they
>>> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft
>>> > is
>>> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Chuck Walbourn
>>> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>>> >
>>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> > rights.
>>> >
>>>
>

 

[Tony Sperling]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

If you never had to buy new ware's when you changed over, that has to be
because you were a late adopter. Everybody else (all the early adopters)
have consistently had problems with all the new OS's.

Can you remember Windows 3.0? It came on 13 Floppies - 5 of which were
printer drivers, if I'm not mistaken. That is why MS came up with the notion
of 'Device Independency'. This concept means that Microsoft takes care of
maintaining a 'Subsystem' for which everybody who wants to have their
hardware to function with the particular OS has to supply their own driver
that is now an integral part of the hardware. And MS wasn't even doing this
based on it's power to dictate. At that time Word Perfect was released on 9
Floppies 3 of which were pretty much the same printer drivers, but they were
not compatible because one worked from the OS's side, and the other worked
from the user's side. This was an unmentionable nuicance to everybody and
the whole industry drew a sigh of relief in view of the new order.

Unfortunately this also meant that the hardware manufacturers could now
decide how fast their products was aging, so if you have been hanging on to
some valuable hardware for some time you may unknowingly have sheilded
yourself from this impact. But it's not new. We are all frustrated about it
when it hits us, but it is far better than what it used to be like.

It's nice to have someone around that you can allways blame whenever
something goes wrong, but Microsoft cannot tell the hardware manufacturers
when one of their products are old enough to be scrapped. If you feel left
behind, learn to blame the guilty party, the one that sucks up your cash by
not supporting the OS that you invested in. There is nothing wrong with the
OS, you made a reasonable investment - the lacking support only starts after
the OS is released and MS cannot be blamed for that, even if the rest of
us - sitting around in the glow of our monitors, may sometimes think to
ourselves that they are in cahoots (which they are) but your trouble doesn't
start there. MS makes a wonderful product, if nobody buys it, it dies, and
you'll have saved your money. On the other hand, if everybody buys it but
all the printer manufacturers chose not to support it, it dies too and your
money is wasted. That is how it really works. Can you begin to imagine now,
the amount of defunct hardware that sits between all of us here.

Now I am really pissed off with MS for having sold me a joystick that they
decided to discontinue. As with all other hardware the joystick needs a
driver - this driver MS wrote and supplied with the 'stick', but when they
discontinued the hardware, they also didn't write any updates for the driver
so now I am stranded with a joystick that doesn't have a driver for the OS
that I bought from Microsoft. As a revenge I promptly installed my legal
copy of XP Home on two different machines, so that I could put my valued
joystick, not just to good use - but to any use. That's how much of a MS fan
I am - but XP x64 really is a wonderful OS.


Tony. . .

 

[Denise]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?

Oh Blah blah!

Your status as MVP has nothing to do with this thread. Stay on topic.

I'm a mother who raised two children. One is an LPN and taking courses to
become an RN. She then plans to continue her education to become a
physician's assistant. She's married, works full time and has a 5 year old
son.

My son became of member of the National Honor Society in his Freshman year .
.. . the first Freshman to become a member of the NHS in six years. In his
Sophmore year, he was elected President of the National Honor Society and
remained President of the NHS in his Junior and Senior years. He was elected
as Student Body President in his Sophmore year and remained Study Body
President through his Senior year. He graduated with 75% of the honors
during graduation ceremony and received a full two year scholarship from our
local community college.

Me? I was just the mother who raised them with the character, morals,
drive, love and zest for life, to excel in all things and to do their best in
all that they do, nothing half-hearted, to become a credit to society and to
give back to it as much as they could.

I just figured if you could stray from the topic, so could I. At least I
accomplished something well worth mentioning, not something as paultry as
knowing a lot about computers.

Since you claim to know so much about computers, tell me why I can't change
the name of a file that's not in use. Tell me why my settings keep changing.
Tell me why I couldn't update the firmware for my CPU without reformatting
it two times. My hdd, CPU and mobo are compatible and they were made to be
compatible with X64, so why don't they work?

Tell the author of this thread which os is better . . . Vista or XP Pro!
--
Denise

~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're going.


"John Barnes" wrote:

> Hear, hear.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-AD2ECE9E5C88@microsoft.com...
> > Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
> > don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
> > absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain me
> > in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always will
> > be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I will
> > again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS on any
> > specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes my
> > contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
> > independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
> > so.
> >
> > --
> > Charlie.
> > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >
> >
> > "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com...
> >> It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
> >> advertising
> >> 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with
> >> existing
> >> hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
> >> compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to 2000
> >> XP
> >> Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
> >> software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have
> >> pretty
> >> good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with
> >> betas
> >> and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use by
> >> giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As
> >> the
> >> author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and
> >> Pro
> >> X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
> >> 64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when I
> >> purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself,
> >> made be
> >> feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
> >> purchased to build my computer.
> >>
> >> So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase
> >> new
> >> hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with your
> >> 32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive.
> >> Updated
> >> drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software,
> >> such as
> >> my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
> >> capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit
> >> driver
> >> "fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a
> >> Microsoft
> >> Word document.
> >>
> >> I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus",
> >> understand
> >> most of Charlie's statement:
> >>
> >> "That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
> >> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> >> version, I did a clean, fresh install."
> >>
> >> This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
> >> install the new CPU firmware that I had.
> >>
> >> http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536
> >>
> >> It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
> >> matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
> >> --
> >> Denise
> >>
> >> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
> >> going.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full
> >>> time
> >>> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005, and
> >>> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well
> >>> performing
> >>> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH
> >>> 64),
> >>> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
> >>> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with
> >>> betas
> >>> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Charlie.
> >>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> >>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
> >>> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of
> >>> >> Vista
> >>> >> X64!
> >>> >> Thank you!
> >>> >
> >>> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver writers
> >>> > or
> >>> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in
> >>> > Windows
> >>> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made
> >>> > to
> >>> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
> >>> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third
> >>> > parties
> >>> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in
> >>> > large
> >>> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not
> >>> > Microsoft.
> >>> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and
> >>> > was
> >>> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
> >>> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third
> >>> > parties.
> >>> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy
> >>> > it
> >>> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
> >>> >
> >>> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
> >>> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most
> >>> > third
> >>> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their
> >>> > part
> >>> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing an
> >>> > OS
> >>> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development
> >>> > tools
> >>> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through
> >>> > logo
> >>> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's up
> >>> > to
> >>> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a
> >>> > version
> >>> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to
> >>> > do
> >>> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
> >>> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to
> >>> >> run in
> >>> >> an
> >>> >> X64 os.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
> >>> >
> >>> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native
> >>> > printer
> >>> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
> >>> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they probably
> >>> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
> >>> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
> >>> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do
> >>> > something
> >>> > else.
> >>> >
> >>> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of
> >>> > software/hardware
> >>> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows
> >>> > 64-bit is
> >>> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it,
> >>> > they
> >>> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft
> >>> > is
> >>> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> > Chuck Walbourn
> >>> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
> >>> >
> >>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >>> > rights.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >
>
>

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Re: Vista 64 bit or Windows XP x64 edition ?



--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23na8ucJ0HHA.1100@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hear, hear.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:C5072410-0638-4647-9E1D-AD2ECE9E5C88@microsoft.com...
>> Oh, and one thing. I am proud of being an MVP - it's a recognition that I
>> don't ask for but that is all about my contributions. However, it does
>> absolutely nothing to change what I say about MS, nor does it constrain
>> me in any way. My opinions are my own, they always have been, and always
>> will be. I've disagreed with MVPs, I've disagreed with MS, and I'm sure I
>> will again. Being an MVP doesn't mean I (or any other) has to support MS
>> on any specific point. My award as an MVP is annual, and only recognizes
>> my contributions LAST year. not anything I may say or do this year. We're
>> independent (and often VERY independent) of Microsoft. And will always be
>> so.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Denise" <Denise@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:223E95FF-29DF-45B7-8B1F-0EF5ED470D94@microsoft.com...
>>> It's too bad that Microsoft didn't state on the package or in its
>>> advertising
>>> 13 months ago, when I purchased it, that X64 wasn't compatible with
>>> existing
>>> hardware and software. Considering whether existing hardware would be
>>> compatible when upgrading from Windows 95, to 98, to XP Home, and to
>>> 2000 XP
>>> Pro wasn't an issue. Not everyone has the money to buy new hardware and
>>> software when they upgrade their os. Since it appears that you have
>>> pretty
>>> good cash flow to continuously purchase new hardware and software with
>>> betas
>>> and new operating systems in mind, maybe you can put some of it to use
>>> by
>>> giving third parties the initiative to get their support in place. As
>>> the
>>> author of this thread has had sufficient time to see how Vista X64 and
>>> Pro
>>> X64 work, he was smart to inquire about the others' opinions of the two
>>> 64-bit programs. It is the way I would have done it 13 months ago when
>>> I
>>> purchased XP Pro X64 but the opinion of all people, such as yourself,
>>> made be
>>> feel secure that X64 was compatible with hardware and software that I
>>> purchased to build my computer.
>>>
>>> So for all those who don't have a lot of money to continuously purchase
>>> new
>>> hardware and software that is needed for a 64-bit system, stick with
>>> your
>>> 32-bit system until you can afford it because it can get expensive.
>>> Updated
>>> drivers sometimes aren't sufficient for 32-bit hardware and software,
>>> such as
>>> my new all-in-one printer that no longer has the scanning and faxing
>>> capabilities that it had with my 32-bit system. The updated 64-bit
>>> driver
>>> "fixes" the scanning function but, ironically, it won't scan to a
>>> Microsoft
>>> Word document.
>>>
>>> I wonder how many people, other than MVP's and "computer gurus",
>>> understand
>>> most of Charlie's statement:
>>>
>>> "That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH 64),
>>> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the RTM
>>> version, I did a clean, fresh install."
>>>
>>> This past week, I formatted my computer two times because X64 could not
>>> install the new CPU firmware that I had.
>>>
>>> http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=130536
>>>
>>> It's no surprise that you would agree with other Microsoft MVP's in this
>>> matter Charlie. It's your responsibility to do so.
>>> --
>>> Denise
>>>
>>> ~ If you don't know where you came from, you won't know where you're
>>> going.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chuck, I couldn't agree more. Like you, I've been running XP x64 full
>>>> time
>>>> for quite a while - got my first x64 capable box in January of 2005,
>>>> and
>>>> haven't looked back since. I've had a remarkably stable and well
>>>> performing
>>>> system. That box is still running XP x64 (now in a dual boot with LH
>>>> 64),
>>>> and has only had one re-install. When I went from the RC code to the
>>>> RTM
>>>> version, I did a clean, fresh install. Of course, I buy hardware with
>>>> betas
>>>> and new OSs in mind, and do my homework on drivers, etc.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:46a6a3a7$1@news.microsoft.com...
>>>> >> Well, somebody finally admits that XP Pro X64 is a beta version of
>>>> >> Vista
>>>> >> X64!
>>>> >> Thank you!
>>>> >
>>>> > Until there was a Windows x64 Edition, there was no way driver
>>>> > writers or
>>>> > software developers could actually support x64. The investments in
>>>> > Windows
>>>> > XP Pro x64 Edition and Windows Server 2003 SP1 x64 Edition were made
>>>> > to
>>>> > help get the whole ecosystem going for Windows 64-bit. We had a very
>>>> > extended Beta for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition trying to give third
>>>> > parties
>>>> > as much time as possible to get their support in place, but by in
>>>> > large
>>>> > most of them ignored it. That's their decision and choice, not
>>>> > Microsoft.
>>>> > Windows XP Pro x64 Edition was never released as a retail product and
>>>> > was
>>>> > only available through the OEM channel to help minimize the potential
>>>> > end-user problems from having limited driver support from third
>>>> > parties.
>>>> > Again, there's not much Microsoft can do about people choosing to buy
>>>> > it
>>>> > and install it without having done the necessary research.
>>>> >
>>>> > I've been running Windows XP Pro x64 Edition at work for nearly three
>>>> > years and it works perfectly fine as long as I recognize that most
>>>> > third
>>>> > parties are completely ignoring it. The CPU vendors have done their
>>>> > part
>>>> > selling x64 CPUs for years. Microsoft has done their part releasing
>>>> > an OS
>>>> > that supports x64 in early 2005, putting out software development
>>>> > tools
>>>> > for 64-bit native development, and pushing x64 compataiblity through
>>>> > logo
>>>> > programs and its own software development efforts. After that, it's
>>>> > up to
>>>> > customer demand and third parties to make x64 a success. Without a
>>>> > version
>>>> > of Windows 64-bit and customers using it, no third party was going to
>>>> > do
>>>> > anything to support it. It's a classic technology problem, and the
>>>> > transition will be with us for many years to come.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> It seems that you and Adobe Acrobat disagree about it's ability to
>>>> >> run in
>>>> >> an
>>>> >> X64 os.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=331732&sliceId=2
>>>> >
>>>> > Basically Adobe is saying "we didn't bother to write 64-bit native
>>>> > printer
>>>> > drivers or a 64-bit ActiveX control for Acrobat 7.0.x". They were
>>>> > prefectly capable of doing so, they just chose not to as they
>>>> > probably
>>>> > felt there wasn't enough customer demand. This is not a problem with
>>>> > Microsoft or Windows 64-bit, but a general approach businesses take
>>>> > towards new technology: We'll do the minimum until we have to do
>>>> > something
>>>> > else.
>>>> >
>>>> > Please let Adobe (or any other third party supplier of
>>>> > software/hardware
>>>> > device) know that you feel their lack of full support of Windows
>>>> > 64-bit is
>>>> > a problem. Until they have enough customers telling them to do it,
>>>> > they
>>>> > won't bother to put in the extra effort. Venting here or at Microsoft
>>>> > is
>>>> > blaming the wrong party for the lack of support.
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Chuck Walbourn
>>>> > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>>>> >
>>>> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>> > rights.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>
>